Search

Lack of unity among Churches prevents them from fully and effectively bearing Christian testimony in public. During the second millennium, the three major Christian traditions – Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox – moved away from the territorial principle of ecclesiology, according to which the Church must be one “in every place.” Since the Crusades, the Roman Catholic Church started to establish Latin Patriarchates as an alternative to the already existing Oriental Local ones and created the ecclesiological problem of co-territoriality. Gradually, Roman Catholic ecclesiology allowed Churches of different ritual traditions to co-exist within a single territory. This anti-ecclesiological, anti-canonical conviventia created a new, post-ecclesial, epoch. During the sixteenth century, Protestantism, emphasizing “confession of the faith” as the foundation of the Church, created the ecclesiological problem of Confessionalism and admitted the co-existence in a single place of churches of different confessions. Orthodoxy did not consider the interruption of communion with the Western Church as a full schism nor did it create anything resembling an alternate “Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome.” Since the nineteenth century, the emigration of Orthodox Christians to regions outside the traditional territory of their respective locally established Churches, together with the growth of Ethno-phyletism, led to the creation of multiple Orthodox dioceses, based exclusively on ethnic-national criteria in full communion with each other. National Orthodox Churches went so far as to claim a kind of extra-territoriality to enable them to minister to compatriots abroad. This chapter conducts a global research on the ecclesio-canonical problem of co-territoriality through the three major Christian Ecclesiologies of the second Christian millennium: (1) the Crusades, (2) the Reform, and (3) Ethno-Phyletism. An original scientific and critical approach reveals that: the first Millennium resolved Christological problems, the second offers inherited unresolved Ecclesiological problems, and in the third Millennium we are invited to examine and to resolve them.

The present work bears the title, «The Procedure before the Ecclesiastical (Church) Courts of the Church of Greece: A nomocanonical analysis of the state law 5383/1932» which aspires to constitute the first monograph devoted to Law 5383/1932, a law that concerns the Greek Ecclesiastical courts, or better yet, the law regarding ecclesiastical disciplinary law according to the case law of the Council of State. This law concerns 82 metropolises (cathedrals) and the archdiocese of Athens. The disciplinary procedure is a judicial procedure that entails a hearing during which all of the principles of a fair trial must be applied. These courts owe a duty to offer the guarantees of a fair trial. The criterion is to know whether they are vindicating a difference with the rules of law having jurisdiction over this difference in the context of an existing procedure. Law 5383/1932 is a legal text and, in order to analyze it, we have used the legal and Canon law methods otherwise known as legal rule analysis and interpretation., Le présent travail intitulé « La procédure devant les tribunaux ecclésiastiques de l’Église de Grèce : une analyse nomocanonique de la loi étatique 5383/1932 », ambitionne d’être la première monographie consacrée à la Loi 5383/1932, loi concernant les tribunaux ecclésiastiques grecs, dite aussi, d’après la définition du Conseil d’État, loi du droit disciplinaire ecclésiastique. Elle concerne 82 métropoles et l’archevêché d’Athènes. La procédure disciplinaire est une procédure judiciaire ; elle consiste en un procès au cours duquel doivent être appliqués tous les principes d’un procès juste. Ces tribunaux aussi doivent offrir la garantie d’un jugement juste. Le critère consiste à savoir s’ils saisissent une différence selon les règles du droit, avec compétence pour cette différence dans le cadre d’une procédure préétablie. La Loi 5383/1932 est un texte juridique et, pour la traiter, nous avons appliqué les méthodes juridiques et canoniques, dites nomocanoniques, d’analyse et d’interprétation.